Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jul 2002 16:10:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4672 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> Look, in the vast scope of the universe, our lifespans are teeny-tiny. I'm
> not belittling life--I love mine annd I sure don't want it to end... but we
> have no concept what there is after our physical shells are pushing up
> daiseys. If a religion believes that the 'soul' is not going to heaven due
> to a medical procedure, who are we to say they *must* have it?
Fine. I agree. But who are you to say that I *may not* have it? Even if
you're my parent.
> Sure some
> would say 'Well, what if your religion says you have to go blow up folks...'
> well then that's different, isn't it?
Not really.
In one case, superstitious zealots are killing innocents. In the other,
superstitious zealots are killing innocents. I don't see a whole bunch of
difference.
> The parents raise the kids, pure and simple.
What does that mean? I perceive it as a suggestion that society does not have
a vested interest in keeping kids safe from their parents. This is the full
blown assertion that children are chattel rather than members of society,
entitled to the protection of rights. That dog won't hunt.
> Yes, if there's abuse and I mean real honest to goodness abuse,
> then that's completely different.
How bad does something have to be to count as abuse? Is it only abuse if the
parents _know_ that they're doing wrong? If a young parent begins displaying
schizophrenia, and believes that God has told him to sacrifice his son, do you
just let that happen?
Let me point out that the word -abuse- is synonomous with misuse. To abuse a
person is to use that person improperly. It includes, in my opinion, a much
wider range of behaviours than our law affirms.
Do you think that parents should be able to have their children's ears removed?
Consider carefully, that it makes cleaning the head quicker and easier!
> Not letting a child undergo a medical
> procedure, even if it's life-saving, is *not* abuse if there is a violation
> of fundamental principles.
But wait, it is a violation of fundamental priciples to let the child die
without medical care...mine. So whose principles matter?
> There are many children all over the world, even
> in G8 countries, that don't get the the surgery they need and they don't
> have the religious issues--worry about them instead.
I worry about them in addition. And I think that we (not the gubmint, but you
and I) ought to be helping them.
> Defying a religious belief, whether we believe in it or not, it's a base
> principle for them--they are willing to die for that principle, just as we
> should be willing to die for ours. We should not, however, have other
> people die for what we believe
But isn't that what happens when parents allow their babies to die untreated?
Do you really believe that the baby is a Christian Scientist?
> --and for them--surgery = spiritual death.
Really? I thought they just used illness as an opportunity to practice their
faith more firmly. They believe that illness and death happen because we don't
have strong enough faith to keep them at bay. At leat that's how I undersand
it.
> ~60 years on this planet weighed against an eternity with our Lord and
> Saviour?--No contest.
But I _know_ that people die and that it sucks. I don't know that there's some
"eternity with our Lord" afterward. Why not let said "Lord and Savior" take
care of the afterlife and we'll take care of the physical life?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
